Rails core - May 2007 - Namespaced model valid #to_xml support in ActiveRecord, ActiveSupport and ActiveResource

Hi,

Attached are links to two patches I submitted via the RoR Trac system
a week or so ago:
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8305
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8308

I refrained from creating a new Trac ticket for ARes, which will be
affected if both of these patches are accepted by Core.

There are a couple of workarounds for this issue, but it would be nice
for AR, AS and ARes to output valid XML and resolve to namespaced
models correctly from XML respectively.  Currently #to_xml on
ActiveRecord::Base and Array creates invalid XML output for namespaced
models.

For one of the workarounds (which unfortunately seems to break RSpec
partial mocks of models) see one of my blog postings at:
http://snakesgemscoffee.blogspot.com/2007/05/activerecordbasetoxml-woes.html

Comments are appreciated and I am open to creating a RubyGem or Rails
Plugin to fix this issue if it seems that the Core team do not want to
fix this in Rails any time soon.

Thanks.
SP


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8305
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8308
An XML namespace has to be declared to be valid xml, so the patches
submitted seem to leave us in the same situation where .to_xml will
produce invalid xml.

So given Module::Model, the only options I can think of are
<module_model> or <model>?  Which is better or worse for your
particular situation?



-- 
Cheers

Koz

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On May 23, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
>> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8305
>> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8308
>
> An XML namespace has to be declared to be valid xml, so the patches
> submitted seem to leave us in the same situation where .to_xml will
> produce invalid xml.
>
> So given Module::Model, the only options I can think of are
> <module_model> or <model>?  Which is better or worse for your
> particular situation?
>
what about ''<module-model>'' since ''-''
cannot possible be part of a
ruby class/module name?  it allows for

	<module-foo_bar>
etc.

-a
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being  
better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

That sounds like a reasonable option. Perhaps something else worth
considering is that overriding the root element for a given model
class is a little hard. Perhaps that''s a sign we should be refactoring
the serialization a little?

On 5/24/07, ara.t.howard <ara.t.howard@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On May 23, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
> >
> >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8305
> >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8308
> >
> > An XML namespace has to be declared to be valid xml, so the patches
> > submitted seem to leave us in the same situation where .to_xml will
> > produce invalid xml.
> >
> > So given Module::Model, the only options I can think of are
> > <module_model> or <model>?  Which is better or worse for
your
> > particular situation?
> >
>
> what about ''<module-model>'' since
''-'' cannot possible be part of a
> ruby class/module name?  it allows for
>
> 	<module-foo_bar>
> etc.
>
> -a
> --
> we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being
> better. simply reflect on that.
> h.h. the 14th dalai lama
>
>
>
>
> >
>

-- 
Cheers

Koz

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Refactoring serialization +1

I''m also looking at a refactoring that will make it easy to have the  
same flexibility in to_json as in to_xml.  I probably won''t get to it  
for a week or two at this rate, but if someone beats me to it I won''t  
mind too much...

--josh

On May 24, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
> That sounds like a reasonable option. Perhaps something else worth
> considering is that overriding the root element for a given model
> class is a little hard. Perhaps that''s a sign we should be
refactoring
> the serialization a little?
>
> On 5/24/07, ara.t.howard <ara.t.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May 23, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8305
>>>> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8308
>>>
>>> An XML namespace has to be declared to be valid xml, so the patches
>>> submitted seem to leave us in the same situation where .to_xml will
>>> produce invalid xml.
>>>
>>> So given Module::Model, the only options I can think of are
>>> <module_model> or <model>?  Which is better or worse
for your
>>> particular situation?
>>>
>>
>> what about ''<module-model>'' since
''-'' cannot possible be part of a
>> ruby class/module name?  it allows for
>>
>> 	<module-foo_bar>
>> etc.
>>
>> -a
>> --
>> we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being
>> better. simply reflect on that.
>> h.h. the 14th dalai lama
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers
>
> Koz
>
> >
--
Josh Susser
http://blog.hasmanythrough.com



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---